Blog Archives

In The Kill, there’s a scene where Zack and Olivia are reviewing official records that relate to the villain. As they begin to understand the killer’s background, Zack says:

“I heard a phrase once, can’t remember where, that monsters are created. [He] is a product of his upbringing. Doesn’t make him any less guilty, but dammit, I hate that the cycle continues.”

Zack couldn’t remember where he heard the phrase because I couldn’t remember where I heard it. I thought I might have read it in a Thomas Harris book or in a Keith Ablow book, but after skimming my copies I couldn’t find the reference.

Keith Ablow is a forensic psychiatrist and I picked up his book Denial a couple years ago. Ablow is not for the faint of heart–his books are very real slices of tragic life, and while there is hope and compassion within the pages, there’s also death and destruction.

I couldn’t put the book down.

So I picked up his other books when they came out. Psychopath is particularly strong and compelling because I felt that while I despised and feared the villain on one level because he committed atrocious, evil crimes against innocent people; on another, I found that I understood him because he was a product of his upbringing. I could see how he developed into a monster.

Ablow is a practicing forensic psychiatrist and expert witness, just like the protagonist in his novels. Because of his background, he writes authentic and convincing books that are now on my auto-buy list.

Ablow has thoughtful insights into what goes into the making of people we call monsters. And he said something in the book that really, really resonated with me because I believe it, too.

People are born good, and then life circumstances conspire to destroy their inborn capacity for empathy–their humanity.

This got me thinking a lot more about my villain and what made him (or her) capable of evil acts. This is a topic I explore in my current trilogy because I do think there is a reason for everything.

Some people are grossly abused, physically and emotionally, as children and never turn into killers. They might commit other crimes, or be incapable of love, or be unsympathetic to the plight of others–or they may grow into loving, caring people in spite of their upbringing.

What makes men like Scott Peterson different?

Ablow argues that three generations of death and abandonment created a man who has no empathy for human beings, no humanity in his soul. Ablow’s gift is to clearly demonstrate his case, to show why Scott Peterson killed. And I think I now understand.

It doesn’t make Peterson’s crime any less horrific. It doesn’t make him any less guilty. But it does answer the question that plagues all of us, to one degree or another: what makes someone kill. How are monsters created. Why?

Ablow has far more compassion for Peterson than I do, but now I understand why Peterson grew into a man capable of killing without remorse or emotion.

Ablow argues that Scott Peterson is already dead.

Scott Peterson had already been spiritually dead a very long time. He had walked among us as an emotional vampire feasting day-to-day on the life force of others, particularly women.

Neither handcuffs nor chains can restrain a man whose soul has no core, no center. His thoughts and feelings can travel anywhere, carried on the black wings of his imagination.

Such a man will not be frightened by the specter of lethal injection. For he has already left us.

You cannot kill a man who is already dead.

Ablow goes on to use several other “death” metaphors to illustrate his point. In the end, though, his conclusion is that Scott Peterson is incapable of feeling empathy or emotions that connect us to each other. He asserts that when Scott Peterson killed his wife, Laci, he felt almost nothing.

He didn’t kill in rage, in anger, in jealousy, in lust, in hate . . . he killed for convenience. Having a wife and child was inconvenient for him and the life he had created for himself. He killed because he had no emotional attachment to Laci or their son.

It’s more complex that my one paragraph summary, and the book is definitely worth reading. I’ll admit I initially read the book in order to understand a killer so my writing would be more vivid and real. But I finished the book with a deeper understanding of human nature, of humanity and empathy and emotions, that will make my life, and my relationships, healthier.

While I’m not a psychiatrist, I find myself driven by the same questions Dr. Ablow is. In the first chapter, he explains why he does what he does:

Without exception, my task has been to find the story that explains not what happened to victims but why it happened–why some people destroy others. In order to do so, I have had to journey deep into the psyches of men and women without empathy, capable of brutal acts. And I have become a relentless burrower for the truth about such people. My mind does not rest until I find it. Because once I do, I have my reward: I realize again that nothing and no one is beyond human understanding–not even those we call monsters.

So please email murdershewrites5@yahoo.com with your address and I’ll send you an early copy of THE HUNT!

I’m sorry I didn’t get my post up on the answers to the questions, life caught up to me this weekend . . . birthday parties, board meetings, cleaning, grocery shopping (the kids think I need to feed them), and I actually went to bed relatively early last night (10:30; early for me!)

BUT I’ll post them on Thursday and maybe something these serial killer experts don’t know . . . if I can find something!

It seems that the press love to attach monikers to serial killers. In my upcoming book The Hunt(Ballantine, February 2006), the press dubbed the man who tortures, rapes and hunts women in the wilderness as The Bozeman Butcher. But my killer is fictional . . . and as they say, truth is stranger than fiction . . .

Most nicknames seem to fade away after the killer is apprehended . . . for example, I never knew until recently that Jeffrey Dahmer had been called the “Milwaukee Cannibal.” Some killers are better known by their moniker, such as “Son of Sam” David Berkowitz and the “Hillside Stranglers” Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono. And some names are downright dumb: whoever thought up “The Plainfield Ghoul,” “Mad Beast,” or “Moon Maniac” was having an off day.

So I’m hosting a contest. Match the serial killer with his press-assigned moniker and win an early copy of The Hunt.

Don’t google these guys (or gals), just give it your best guess. If you don’t know one, skip it. The winner is going to be randomly chosen so whether you have the right answers or not isn’t important. The rules? Everyone who comments on this post by midnight Pacific time Saturday 1/7/06 will be entered. I’ll post the correct answers with some background information on the crimes . . . and the winner . . . on Sunday.

On several writing loops, the subject of trends has come up. Most of the conversations have taken a panicky tone, so they caught my attention.

For example:

* Romance suspense is dead
* The chick lit market is tight
* Paranormal is hot, hot, hot, but no more vampires
* All anyone wants is erotic romance

I’m not an expert when it comes to publishing, but I know a little bit about economics. I’m not panicking. And neither should most people.

Chick lit (which encompasses a wide range of female-focused stories that are defined more by tone and voice than subject matter) is following the path of romantic suspense. A few years ago, a couple chick-litty toned books did phenominally well and all the agents and editors were looking for chick lit. A bunch of books were quickly bought and soon brightly-colored covers dominated the trade table at my local Borders.

For a time, these books did very well which spurred even more sales because the demand was fierce, readers couldn’t get enough of these sassy, fun, ironic stories with heroines they related to. But as the supply increased, the books were scheduled further back on the publishing calendar–eighteen months and two years are not uncommon wait times from sale to print.

Now, chick lit isn’t being bought up in vast numbers. Some authors are finding it hard to make that second or third sale. People are calling the market “tight” or “falling.”

I would argue that while selling might be more difficult today than before, the market is not falling. It’s healthy and robust. The simple answer is that supply has met demand. For a brief time, there chick lit saturated the market–supply was greater than demand–so the market pulled back slightly. Now, publishers are looking at the numbers and the trends and determining that readers will purchase X number of chick lit books per month/year and they are adjusting their future purchases because of it. I have read many recent chick lit first sales. The market is not dead. But I’ll bet these new books have a twist, something a little different, and will be marketed slightly different than the chick lits of the recent past.

Good books will sell if they meet the right editor at the right time, no matter what the genre. This is the “luck” factor.

Romantic suspense went through the same growing pains as chick lit. In the mid-late 90s, readers couldn’t get enough romantic suspense. Some writers switched genres, some very successfully, some not. Editors and agents were grabbing up RS all over the place.

The market leveled out, supply met demand — readers had what they wanted.

I was told that romantic suspense was dead, tight, “impossible” for a new author to sell in. But the truth is, there were still all those RS readers out there–they never changed. They still love RS books, and new authors are still being published–just not in the numbers when the market was “hot.” They are being fit in because they offer a new voice, a different twist, or a really good story. And I’d argue that’s the same as historical romances. People still buy them, but the market was saturated for a time and needed to balance out. I just heard about a great, three-book historical sale. The market is balanced, not dead.

The same thing will happen to paranormal and erotic romances. At some point, the readers will have what they want and happily continue to buy their favorite authors, and occasionally pick up a new author. Two years from now, I’ll hear about all the paranormal and erotic authors who tell me that the market is “falling” and I’ll go through all this again.

I think the worst thing an author can do to herself is try to write something that isn’t her voice. When one market is hot, trying to write to that market. I’d argue that sometimes writers need to change with the times, but they can do so without giving up their voice. The blending of genres is quite successful and are usually the breakout novels, particularly for romance writers. Sometimes, it’s finding the right blend for your unique voice. So if I find that my RS sales over time are flat or falling, I won’t jump ship and write chick lit. I can’t. My voice doesn’t fit. But if the historical market is starting to rise, I might take my natural suspense voice and put it in a different time.

Featured on murder she writes

Bio:

Allison Brennan

Allison Brennan is a New York Times and USA Today bestselling author of nearly three dozen romantic thrillers and mysteries, including the Lucy Kincaid series and the Max Revere series. She lives in Northern California with her husband, five children, and assorted pets.